From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: contributing to Emacs Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 17:44:43 +0300 Message-ID: <83fs6gzzqc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83v8fnslfz.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8fnh1h2.fsf@web.de> <83mt0zs9rc.fsf@gnu.org> <0a968a4e1b267c0f15dd237e6ea12a709fc06d5e.camel@yandex.ru> <838rcisj7o.fsf@gnu.org> <6537fa5fa5c1fe8437ed99ee0988e35895f5a54b.camel@yandex.ru> <8423a35750d8d8e0437c7708f6b4d0bbdfdb7fe0.camel@yandex.ru> <87o7ldf7ky.fsf@web.de> <8cc19084ab18d0adb0f2cee4af14aa1b1d914a83.camel@yandex.ru> <87352p9izj.fsf@yahoo.com> <87pm5mvfgi.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83v8fe1wcm.fsf@gnu.org> <87edm1uxze.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83ttuxz4ne.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: spwhitton@spwhitton.name, luangruo@yahoo.com, arne_bab@web.de, ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Konstantin Kharlamov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 24 16:45:22 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qD4Vt-0000Oa-V6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 16:45:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qD4V7-0000Uw-4P; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 10:44:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qD4V5-0000Uf-BE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 10:44:31 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qD4V3-00056M-8m; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 10:44:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=jkfQxl4fBJETtYbRCeqO02Z0ENJysa/Tkv7avBnE018=; b=ASqTf0kROl3NxfPZEPAC BOeDnvQWLODZ3YshcEYLeTNZHXP6WlWOGjsWSU4ail+WQlfncQ7G4ymoWq6/PXo3Hqq1f6sDlIeTq u1J2DIzBAKVYvNclJK1lqS7+GnUTLJc60XTYUVS+a9uTvgnpP93NIUT2hfq/WvAMJ9qhweKsGalD6 QdpwalFpRuq5aMtAVAeIS9YL9V8hBv38cLfqZGlOeAGntWFiWi5g3xdvBXJURfDJ6fm8fivBPN/ds zi9EbAXt5Xpw5KwDLjzfsku5IfZFmNcdHHAHaJN6rMY4Q/7gs7SKVuDgUGZAeiuW60l7U9vFIs1y6 FvjlJSeFMHViAg==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qD4V2-00035t-1i; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 10:44:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Konstantin Kharlamov on Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:36:20 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:307182 Archived-At: > From: Konstantin Kharlamov > Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, arne_bab@web.de, ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:36:20 +0300 > > On Sat, 2023-06-24 at 10:43 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > What most people do instead is they provide a series where each patch > > is a step towards the solution.  First, a patch with some refactoring, > > then another patch with the first aspect of the solution, another > > patch with the second aspect, etc.  Such series make no sense as a > > series, because the patches are not really independent; instead, they > > are _incremental_.  For example, it usually makes no sense to do the > > refactoring if we aren't installing the changes which need it. > > I might be misunderstanding something, but as someone who regularly posts such > "incremental changes" at my work, I tend to disagree that such refactoring will > not be needed if the final change not applied. You might disagree, but such considerations and decisions are the prerogative of the project maintainers, not of the contributors. In Emacs, we don't like code churn unless it has a purpose, and refactoring by itself doesn't justify the downsides of making the code less familiar to those who read and audit it very frequently, and need to be able to find the relevant parts as fast as possible. Keep in mind that this is an old project with code written by excellent programmers (I exclude myself from that group, obviously), and the code is generally in very good shape. Thus, refactoring is not really an urgent need, like it might be in an average project out there. Again, you might disagree, but this is not your call. My point was precisely that since it is not the call of the contributors, they cannot be expected to make those decisions on our behalf, and are therefore better off not dividing the patches into several individual ones. > > Moreover, this technique frequently leads to multiple patches touching > > the same places several times, so when you review the first patch, you > > are looking at code that will be modified later, and risk providing > > comments that are irrelevant, because a later patch in the series > > rewrites that code anyway, perhaps exactly in a way that you want to > > tell the contributor to use. > > Actually, this is exactly how review works. It *does not* matter if later code > rewrote the same place again. If you found a problem in *current* commit/patch, > that means that exactly *this* commit/patch needs to be fixed. I think you misunderstood what I tried to explain, because you are actually saying that wasting effort on reviewing of and commenting on code that will be changed or reverted by a further commit is a Good Thing. But even if you did understand my point, are you really going to tell me how to review patches? Don't you think it's my decision, and not yours? In the project of which you are the maintainer, you can define the procedures and the preferences as you see fit (and I will follow if I need to contribute, as I do, for example, with GDB, where they do want patch series), but you cannot force me use the procedures that you find convenient and natural in a project where I need to review so many patches each day. Bottom line: I explained the rationale so that people could understand the preferences better, and in particular realize that they aren't arbitrary. I hope that better understanding will make it easier to respect the preferences, even if some don't agree with them.